Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Tallinn


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. – Juliancolton  | Talk 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Tallinn

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As was decided by Articles for deletion/List of Taichung bus routes this is indiscriminate information. A "keep" vote based on a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument was given short shift in that debate and I hope not to see any more of them here. Benefix (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Factual notable information. Certainly doesn't fall under the not a travel guide criteria, which it would do if it included frequencies and stops etc (which it doesnt). Can't see any real reason for deletion. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In what sense is it "indiscriminate information" and which policy or guideline supports deletion?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a very sloppy nomination based on the result of a separate nomination. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a nomination from a self-confessed WP:SPA (see nominator's userpage). But that doesn't make him/her automatically wrong, which is why I asked for more information.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete- although it's not explicitly mentioned there, common sense would suggest that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a bus timetable. Reyk  YO!  22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please explain how this article is a bus timetable?! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. A bus timetable would have a list of routes and times at which the buses run on those routes. This article is even less than that. Amending my vote to "strong delete" accordingly. Reyk  YO!  22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your logic is very questionable! You are voting delete for an article that ticks all of WP's boxes? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like Wikipedia is not a directory? Reyk  YO!  22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't see anything there that would sentence this article to death. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that any kind of directory that isn't explicitly forbidden by WP:NOTDIR is actually acceptable. That's not my interpretation. Benefix (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you don't seem to give a specific reason for deleting this article. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reyk, what's your view on the other articles in Category:Lists of Bus Routes? (Disclaimer:This is not a WP:OTHERCRAP argument to keep the article, it's a question to determine whether it would be better to expand the debate.) — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a huge fan, but they're not up for deletion and I am certainly not going to mass-nominate them. Reyk  YO!  02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good basis for building upon; I see no policy reason to delete. --  Chzz  ►  23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Chzz. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate list. Significant element of any city. If we decided otherwise for some particular city, we should revisit the articles involved DGG (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per DGG, as an appropriate list; listcruft would be stuff like an actual schedule, or a list of the managers of the Talinn Bus Company. No policy has been given for deletion, other than pride in being right and not caring for the content. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)  By way of comparison, here are three AfDs that I closed a year and a half ago, with a deletion for "listcrufty things":
 * 1) Articles for deletion/List of historical people portrayed as villains
 * 2) Articles for deletion/List of USAF Intelligence Wings assgned to Strategic Air Command
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Cheap calls and their providers. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Another example is at Articles for deletion/Pakistani lawyers rankings. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well one policy is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm sorry for not linking to it in my nomination for those of you who are unfamiliar with it. Participants in the previous discussion quite understandably felt that this was so obvious it needed no further explanation, but perhaps the clinching question was "is it notable history?" to which there was no answer. What we see in the keep !votes this time around is handwaving like "appropriate" and "significant" but nothing to back it up. I feel the WP:BURDEN lies on you to demonstrate why this belongs in an encyclopedia. Of course if you wish you can rely on your overwhelming numerical superiority this time but I would like to remind you that these are discussions and not votes or opinion polls. Benefix (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the burden lies with the nominator do give valid reasons for deletion of an article. If you don't want this to be a vote, then don't call it a vote.. simple! You cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but there is actually *nothing* there to suggest this article should be deleted. Lets go through what is covered there in order:
 * FAQ - Its not exactly an FAQ, this doesn't cover it
 * Plot Summary - Nope, nothing here
 * Lyrics Database - Bus routes aren't exactly songs.
 * Statistics - Nope not here either, its just a list of bus routes
 * 'News Report - Certainly not this either.
 * Please actually cite a valid argument. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.